Both are considered to be abominations by royalist sides (examples: Bea, Slately)

Yes, because ruler units and warlords have been shown in the past as the supreme experts on magic, so their opinion about the morality of it's use or misuse is VERY relevant to this debate.

It is very relevant, because their expertise or lack thereof in magic has nothing to do with the similarities between uncroaked and decrypted. You cannot counter the fact that their opinions about uncroaked and decrypted are exactly the same by attacking their knowledge of magic. Their opinions are the same, and their knowledge in any subject is irrelevant.

When you speak of opinion of a thing, you are not talking about that thing. You are talking about the opinions, which are elsewhere You are talking about other people. If those people have access to additional information you do not, then you should pay attention. If they don't...

When you speak of opinion of a thing, you are not talking about that thing. You are talking about the opinions, which are elsewhere You are talking about other people. If those people have access to additional information you do not, then you should pay attention. If they don't...

All I was pointing out was that the royal sides have the exact same opinion on uncroaked as they do the decrypted. Abonimations, horrors, unclean, etc. This is a similarity that can be easily seen between the uncroacked and the decrypted. And this is also a fact, which seems to be an inconvenient truth to some.

You have a point, in that their opinions aren't necessarily relevant as to the properties of a thing, since they can be wrong. But that doesn't deny the fact that their opinions and reactions are the same for uncroacked as they are for decrypted. We don't know why royal sides hate the uncroacked. Stanley sure doesn't have any issue with them. We also don't really know why the royals hate the decrypted. Stanley also doesn't have an issue with them. Stanley's ego and potential character development prevented Wanda from decrypting Jack, and he has some questions as to the loyalties of decrypted dwagons, but he isn't calling them abominations.

There is a clear difference in reaction between the royal sides as demonstrated by Bea and Slately and the non-royal sides as demonstrated by Stanley. And this difference is consistent regardless of whether the unit is uncroaked or decrypted.

Zeroberon wrote:

Oh don't even bother Drache, he's just being a stubborn confrontational idiot/troll, which I why I stopped responding. His dribble doesn't merit counterargument.

[quote="Oberon"]All I was pointing out was that the royal sides have the exact same opinion on uncroaked as they do the decrypted. Abonimations, horrors, unclean, etc. This is a similarity that can be easily seen between the uncroacked and the decrypted. And this is also a fact, which seems to be an inconvenient truth to some.

You have a point, in that their opinions aren't necessarily relevant as to the properties of a thing, since they can be wrong. But that doesn't deny the fact that their opinions and reactions are the same for uncroacked as they are for decrypted. We don't know why royal sides hate the uncroacked. Stanley sure doesn't have any issue with them. We also don't really know why the royals hate the decrypted. Stanley also doesn't have an issue with them. Stanley's ego and potential character development prevented Wanda from decrypting Jack, and he has some questions as to the loyalties of decrypted dwagons, but he isn't calling them abominations.

There is a clear difference in reaction between the royal sides as demonstrated by Bea and Slately and the non-royal sides as demonstrated by Stanley. And this difference is consistent regardless of whether the unit is uncroaked or decrypted.[/qoute]

It is immaterial to the issue. I'm sure there are people who find demons and the undead both abominations. I'm sure there are people who find zombies as abominable as animated skeletons, and equally as abominable as a lich, or a ghost, or a wailing wall holding the damned for all eternity. The point is yes they're all pretty abominable but that doesn't make them the same. And just because they all share the undead template doesn't mean you should think they're the same in every way. The only precedence they really hold is for arguments for coming back after death, the supernatural, scary boop. Not for power suites.

You mean he shouldn't do exactly what you do? For pettiness sake you still type out Zeroberon. How small is that? You ignore people's additions out of hand if they're contrary to you and call them wrong, you don't offer any reasoning half the time. You're just a troll. And what the heck we love feeding you.
Also point in fact a lot of what you give are opinions.

Well for once I'll actually defend him, the Zeroberon thing can be helpful to other people who don't know about us. It doesn't bother me at all, I've even noticed some other users do it when we are both arguing in the same thread.

Well for once I'll actually defend him, the Zeroberon thing can be helpful to other people who don't know about us. It doesn't bother me at all, I've even noticed some other users do it when we are both arguing in the same thread.

I would agree, but seeing as how little people tend to qoute themselves, without making note of it, it seems less useful when he does it. But then again, I admit that I probably look for fault in people I am not all too fond of.

I quote myself quite a bit, considering the number of posts I have. Usually it's because I posted something, then continued to think about it and wanted to add more, or it just launches off into a different direction. Other times, there are so many nested quotes that I can't quote everyone else, so I just delete off everyone else except for my own quotes.

Or maybe there is a bladest0rm on here as well, and now I have to make a distinction. Or I could be kinda nuts and not only talk to myself, but answer myself, and answer my own posts.

I quote myself quite a bit, considering the number of posts I have. Usually it's because I posted something, then continued to think about it and wanted to add more, or it just launches off into a different direction. Other times, there are so many nested quotes that I can't quote everyone else, so I just delete off everyone else except for my own quotes.

Or maybe there is a bladest0rm on here as well, and now I have to make a distinction. Or I could be kinda nuts and not only talk to myself, but answer myself, and answer my own posts.

Well I did say without making note of it. Most of the time I imagine it going like: